Agenda - 09-16-2010 - 2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Draft • Planning Process Issues for Recommendations by the Work Group The list of issues described below are those that the Work Group has received information about and on which they have either made a recommendation or will need to further evaluate for development of an overall draft plan. RRSI and Olver have provided technical papers and analyses on all these issues over the past year. • Processing Recyclables: One recent key recommendation the Work Group made in November 2007,was to support development of a shipment point at the Eubanks Road facility to a merchant MRF for all commingled recyclables that the County now collects and is likely to collect in the next year.As program tonnage grows more than 10%over the current tonnage level, it will be necessary to develop expanded recycling transfer capacity at the current site or another site. The decision of whether or not the County should build its own Materials Recovery Facility is hereby deferred as we can use this short-term transfer opportunity to gain experience with the private market and focus on program expansion. Commirigling collection allows us the labor to both expand the number of collection sites in existing programs and possibly add programs to increase our recycling tonnage and further decrease landfilling. The Board of Orange County Commissioners has requested the staffto return in April with a detailed implementation plan for this action. • Rural Residential Waste Services: Last year the Work Group received a technical report from Olver Inc. about providing universal rural residential waste collection using a franchise with one or more haulers with exclusive territories. That solution was evaluated compared to the current system that is a mix of convenience centers and open-market private haulers and found to provide an economy-of-scale that made it economically and environmentally attractive, if collection were provided county-wide. Such a system works best when it is either required to be used, i.e.paid for by all eligible users or there are fees charged by volume for garbage disposed at solid waste convenience centers. Charging a fee to cover waste management costs at the centers could then often economically justify households' decisions to subscribe to waste collection from the exclusively franchised hauler(s)rather than self-haul. The Work Group made no recommendation on this,but will need to address this issue as part of completing a plan. • Solid Waste Convenience Centers and Dropoff Sites:As a corollary to making a more efficient rural residential waste collection system,RRS prepared a technical report on convenience centers and dropoff sites issued in May 2007. Various options on how to manage convenience centers included limiting the number of centers, charging a fee for solid waste and providing more recycling opportunities at the centers.Along with this was a proposal to close one or two of the least used unstaffed recycling dropoff sites to improve collection efficiency. Initiating collection of corrugated cardboard at the curb could further obviate the need for the extensive dropoff site system now in place. Charging waste disposal fees at the convenience centers could make rural residential waste collection at the house more efficient and economically attractive to the residents than the cunently perceived `free' convenience center system that an estimated 70%of households use. Rising gasoline prices and concerns about increased carbon consumption may add to this attractiveness.Adding more services such as hazardous waste and rigid,bulky plastic recycling could have the contrary effect of making the centers more popular,but having fewer centers could make the trips more infrequent. The 95